# Regulatory Impact Assessment and

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
**ADA FINAL RULE: RAIL SYSTEM**

**ACCESSIBILITY JULY 2011** 

**Prepared by: Economic Analysis Division**  **John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Research and Innovative**  **Technology Administration**

**Department of Transportation**1



### Introduction **Overview** This document evaluates the benefits, costs, and other impacts of a DOT rulemaking related to the accessibility

of commuter rail transportation and intercity passenger rail service. In keeping with Executive Order 12866 , Executive Order 13563, and DOT policy , the anal ys is has been prepared with the goal of “assessing the costs and benefits of regulatory alternatives,” allowing policy makers to make regulatory decisions in light of the “best reasonabl y obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information” (E.O. 12866). B enefits and costs of the rule are presented in the sections below. Based on the information gathered for this anal ys is, the overall benefits and costs of the rule are relatively modest , since many aspects of rail service accessibility are already

required b y existing regulations. Compliance costs are estimated at about $1.8 million in construction costs, plus some minor increases in operational co sts for certain commuter rail sy stems that use mini

- high platforms. Benefits of the rule are mainly in the form of serving passengers with disabilities in a more integrated setting.

**General Benefit**
**- Cost Principles**  The basic framework for regulatory evaluation is an examination of the future world with the regulation in place, versus a baseline of the future world in the absence of the regulation. The anal ys is ordinaril y takes a “societal” perspective in which all b enefits and costs are included regardless of to whom they accrue. Non

- monetary

impacts are quantified to the extent possible, for example by

converting travel time savings or emissions avoided into monetary terms. Benefits and costs that accrue in future periods are also converted to present value terms using a discount rate that accounts for the time value of money . As E.O. 1 3563 recognizes that “ some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify ,” qualitative impacts of the rule are also included in the anal ys is. Benefit

- cost analyses in the transportation field typically look at safety, mobility, and/or environmental impacts and attempt to identify the alternative that will maximize societal net benefits. In this case, the final rule is not primarily intended to make travel safer or more efficient in the conventional sense , though there would be the potential for some small travel time savings, as discussed in the Benefits section. Instead, the rule is aimed at ensuring equal access to transportatio n services as a civil right under the Am ericans with Disabilities Act. The anal ys is reflects this focus.
**Summary of Provisions**  The rule would generall y require all new or altered rail stations in commuter or inter

- city passenger service to meet a perfo rmance standard whereb y persons with disabilities, including wheelchair users, could access all accessible cars of each train using that station that are available to other passengers . In cases where the track is not shared with existing freight service, this standard would need to be met through level

- entry boarding, i.e. coordination of the platform height with train car height. In cases where the track is shared with freight service, the standard2

could be met through level boarding, or

– with approval from FTA (for commuter rail) or F RA (for intercity

service)

– through mini

- high platforms (with multiple stops as may be necessary), carborne lifts, station

- based lifts, ramps, bridge plates, or a combination of these approaches. The additional flexibility for services that share track with freight rail is provided due to concerns regarding the wider clearance required by freight cars. The current proposal has been substantially

revised since the 2006 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) , based in part on comments received on the docket. **Methodology Overview** To understand the impacts of the rule, the study team reviewed the comments submitted in response to the 2006 NPRM, keeping in mind the subsequent revisions to the rule; gathered published data on cur

rent accessibility practices, compliance costs, and planned rail service expansions and station renovations; participated (by telephone) in a meeting of the American Public Transportation Association’s commuter rail CEO forum; and interviewed staff from FT A, Amtrak, and commuter railroads. Key questions for cost analy sis included the current and planned future accessibility approach for each railroad, and the resulting number of new or altered stations that would, under the final rule, require accessibility

features that exceed those of the baseline, as well as the incremental costs of those features. In evaluating the potential impacts of the rule, it was assumed that railroads would select the compliance option that was most consistent with their operational practices and that would minimi ze their overall costs, including any upfront equipment costs and/or changes in staffing and operations. Benefits were assessed qualitatively using information about the improvements in rail accessibility

. **Summary of Regulatory Baseline (No Action)**  Sev eral sections of current regulations deal with the platform

- vehicle interface for commuter rail and inter

- city passenger rail. The basic approach, as laid out in 36 CFR 1192 and 49 CFR 38 and interpreted b y DOT Disability L aw Guidance of September 1, 2005 , is that full

- length level boarding is the standard for new or altered platforms wherever feasible. Level boarding is defined as no more than a 3

- inch horizontal and 5/8

- inch vertical gap between the train and platform. DOT has acknowledged that a variety of factors (e.g. equipment wear and suspension) make these gap standards difficult to achieve in the real world, and 49 CFR 37, Appendix A, Section 10.3.1(9) provides an exception where it is not “technicall y or operationally feasible” to meet the gap r equirements. This exception is potentially open to interpretation, but has been interpreted b y DOT to include cases where freight train clearance requirements , sections of curved track, or other situations preclude the use of full

- length high platforms. Inthese cases, mini

- high platforms, car

- borne or platform

- mounted lifts, ramps or bridge plates are permitted b y regulation, though DOT guidance views high platforms with bridgeplates as the preferred option to be used wherever possible. “Mini

- highs” are small raised sections of the platform, accessed by ramps, that provide for level boarding of one or two cars with the assistance of a bridgeplate. Rail operators who use mini

- highs or similar approaches are required to provide access to each train, but are generally

not required to “double stop” to permit access to multiple cars , except in cases where there is no available accessible seating in the car that ordinarily aligns with the mini

high

.3

Nearl y all commuter , inter

- city , and high

- speed passenger railroads receive Federal funding and are thus also subject to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its implementing regulations, including the general requirement to provide “services [...] in the most integrated setting that is reasonabl y achievable” (49 CFR 27.7(b)(2)). Again, DOT has viewed this as requiring level boarding wherever possible, or at least an approach (such as carborne lifts) that does not tend to segregate wheelchair users from other passengers. In practice, the accessibility approach that railroads employ varies from line to line and in some cases from station to station, based on the train equipment in use, technical constraints, passenger volumes, staffing practices, and other factors. Railroads that own and control their right

- of

- way , such as the Long Island Rail Road, have generally adopted high platforms as their standard approach, not onl y for accessibility reasons but also because it reduces station dwell time. Amtrak likewise uses high platforms on the Northeast Corridor. By contrast, railroads that operate on freight

- owned tracks generall y do not provide high platforms due to issues regarding freight clearance

. A few of these, such as the W estside Express S ervice (WES) in Portland, Oregon, have b een able to implement level boarding from high platforms by building gauntlet tracks (i.e., a set of double, interlaced tracks on the same railbed) that allow freight train s to pass through station areas with a sufficient clearance envelope from the high platform . More commonly , these railroads use low platforms with mini

- highs or way side lifts, often with a sy stemwide approach that ensures that the mini

- high or lift aligns with the same car at each station. Wayside lifts are the most common approach for Amtrak stations outside of the Northeast Corridor. A small number of railroads have instead focused on purchasing lift

equipped coaches, which provide flexibility when there is a need to board passengers from several different levels (e.g., high platform, low platform, and street level ). The table below summarizes the status of each of these accessibility approaches under the current and the draft final rule

. As the table show s, many of the differences are relativel y minor; railroads would generall y face similar requirements under the draft final rule . Railroads who share with freight services would be able to use the same accessibility practices, with some exceptions and modifications, as they do now.
**Summary of Draft F**  **inal Rule vs. Current Rule**  **Accessibility A pproach for**  **Platform -**  **Car Interface at New or A**  **ltered Stations Status Under Current**  **Regulations Status Under**  **Draft F inal**  **Regulations** Level boarding Must be used unless not technically or operationally feasible. Must be used unless station
area track on that line or system is shared with existing freight service

. FTA/FRA mu st approve the alternative approach.4

**Accessibility A pproach for**  **Platform -**  **Car Interface at New or A**  **ltered Stations Status Under Current**  **Regulations Status Under**  **Draft F inal**  **Regulations** Carborne lift Permissible if level boarding is not feasible. At least one car per train must be lift
equipped. Permissible in systems where station
- area track is shared with existing freight service, if all accessible cars serving th e station are l ift
- equipped and the approach is approved by FTA/FRA. Mini
- high platforms Permissible if level boarding is not feasibl e. Double
stopping is not required except where no accessible spaces remain in the relevant car. Permissible in systems where station
- area track is shared with existing freight service, if approved by FTA/FRA. Double
stopping required on request of passe nger. Wa ys ide/platform lift Permissible if level boarding is not feasible. At least one car per train must be accessible. Double
- stopping is not required except where no accessible spaces remain in the relevant car. Permissible in systems where station
- area track is shared with existing freight service, if the lift provides access to all cars (e.g., a mo bile lift) and the approach is approved by FTA/FRA. The draft final rule would not alter any of the existing regulations related to other aspects of commuter rail and inter

- city passenger rail accessibility, such as the accessibility of station ticketing and waiting areas, onboard facilities, or reservation s ys tems. It would also leave in place all existing responsibilities to retrofit accessibility features at “ K ey S tations” in public transportation sy stems and at all Amtrak stations, according to the schedules adopted in statute and prior rulemakings. Amtrak did not meet its 2010 deadline but continues to work tow ard accessibility

of all stations, and has produced a comprehensive inventory of the accessibility level at each of its stations. No nationwide inventory is available for commuter rail stations, and the range of current accessibility varies widel y. Many newer commuter rail stations are full y ADA

- compliant , but some older stations

– those that were not designated as “ Key S tations” b y their agency

and that have not been altered since the passage of ADA

– still remain without any accessibility

features at al l. **Other Assumptions and Limitations** This analy sis attempts to capture the impact of the rule on planned new and altered stations and new rail s ys tems, based on interview s , published information from the railroads (e.g. capital improvement plans), and industry

- wide sources such as the APTA station database. However, capital projects of this nature are subject to funding constraints, permitting delays, and political decisions, while new projects (not currentl y planned) may emerge in the future based on funding availability

or new policy

priorities. Therefore, estimates of planned station construction are inherently

variable, particularl y as the forecast goes further into the future. This analysis uses a 10

- ye ar forecast period (2011

- 2020) as the longes t period for which reasonably detailed and reliable information can be obtained. Within this period, Amtrak has used 2011

- 2015 as its implementation period for bringing its existing stations into ADA compliance.5

This analy sis also excludes the potential effects of state or local accessibility guidelines and standards as they

relate to rail stations and platforms. For example, regulations issued by the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board require full

- length level boarding at new commuter rail station s and at least a 2

- car length mini

- high platform at altered and renovated stations (521 CMR 18). In general, state accessibility regulations supersede federal rules only when they provide for more (rather than less) accessibility . However, anal yz ing 50 s ets of state regulations and their interaction with existing and proposed federal regulations is a complexity that is beyond the scope of the current analysis. To the extent that any of the affected railroads would need to compl y with state regulations , the impacts of the draft final federal rule would be lessened or eliminated since the prevailing state rules would be stricter. For simplicity , the anal ys is also assumes that adoption of the rule would not affect military use of the railroad network under the Strategic Rail Corridor (STRACNET) program. It is assumed that the rule would not supersede these defense requirements.



### An **aly sis:**  **C ommuter**  **R ail**  **T ransportation**  There are 24 commuter rail sy stems in the United States (See Table 1) 1 . Commuter rail is defined by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) as service provided on regular railroads or railroad rights of way by either self

- propelled cars or cars pulled by locomotives that pick up passengers in stations only . It generall y links suburbs to major urban areas. According to the APTA Public Transportation Factbook, Americans took a total of 472 million unlinked commuter rail trips in 2008, 4.5% of all trips taken on public transportation that year. Commuter rail trips make up 20% of the passenger miles traveled on public transportation. Commuter rail sy stems also saw the largest percentage point increase in acce ssibility from 1993 to 2008 of all modes, during which the percent age of cars that were accessible by lift, ramp, or station infrastructure went from 43% to 83%. B ecause the universe of commuter rail systems is small, we aimed to reach as many s ys tems as possible. We started our research with those who submitted comments to the original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2006. We then used the APTA Public Transportation Infrastructure Database’s Commuter Rail Route Segment Table from December 2008 to identi fy new s ys tems, proposed routes, and those under construction, and made it a priority to contact those who were new or considering expansion, as the rule ’s impact would be limited to new and altered stations. We also used online searches to verify the info rmation from 2008, as some plans either passed to the construction stage or were laid aside. W e then interviewed 9 commuter rail agencies individually

. Lastly , we were able to hear from agencies on an APTA conference call that also

1 The 24 systems listed in Table 1 are not the same as the 23 agencies listed in Table 28 of the Public Transportation Factbook. Table 1 includes four newer systems: New Mexico’s Rail Runner Express; Austin, Texas’ Capital MetroRail; Portland, Oregon’s West side Express Service; and Minnesota’s Northstar. It excludes Pennsylvania DOT’s Keystone Express and Portland, ME’s Downeaster service as they are operated and marketed as Amtrak services and are covered in the Amtrak section of this report. In addition, T rinity Railway Express (TRE) is operated jointly between Fort Worth and Dallas, and is presented as a single listing in Table 1 despite being listed twice in the APTA Factbook.6

included other commuter rail industry experts. That call provided more general information about accessibility

practices in different operating environments

.
**Table 1**  **. Commuter Rail Systems** Sy stem Metropolitan Area **New Mexico Rail Runner**  **Express** Albuquerque, NM **Alaska Railroad Corporation** Anchorage, AK **Capital Metro Rail**  Austin, TX **Maryland Area Rail Commuter (MARC)**  Baltimore/ Washington **Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority**  Boston, MA **Metra** Chicago, IL **South Shore Line (NICTD)**  Chicago, IL / South Bend, IN **Trinity Railway Express** Dallas/Fort Worth, TX **Metrolink** Los Angeles, CA **Tri**
**- Rail**  Miami, FL **Northstar** Minneapolis

- St. Paul **Music City Star** Nashville, TN **Shore Line East**  New Haven, CT **MTA Long Island Railroad (LIRR)**  New York, NY **MTA Metro**
**- North**  New York, NY **New Jersey Transit** New York / Philadelphia / Atlantic City **Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority**  **(SEPTA)** Philadelphia, PA
**Westside Express Service** Portland, OR **FrontRunner** Salt L ake City, UT **North County Transit District**  **Coaster** San Diego, CA **Caltrain** San Francisco, CA **Altamont Commuter Express** San Jose / San Joaquin, CA **Sounder** Seattle, WA **Virginia Railway Express (VRE)**  Washington, DC

**Docket Summary** We reviewed and summarized all rail

- related comments on the docket for the NPRM published in 2006 (DOT

- OST

- 2006

- 23985), aside from those that dealt with strictly procedural or legal issues. The purpose of the docket review was to (1) gain insight into the likely approaches that7

commuter and inter

- city

passenger railroads would take to meet new platform accessibility requirements, (2) understand the staffing and operational considerations associated with different accessibility

approaches, and (3) gather any available data on the costs of relevant equipment or construction. The docket review was conducted with the understanding that the regulatory proposal has been significantl y revised since these comments were submitted, and that some commenters may have misinterpreted the original proposal. Due to these limitations, much of the information in the docket is not directl y applicable to the current analysis, but provides valuable context on railroad operations and current conditions. The table in Appendix B presents a summary of the key

points from each commenter. Generall y speaking, there was a split in the comments between the older s ys tems of the northeast and the newer s ys tems in the south and west. The former group tended to object to the potential increase in the number of bridgeplates deplo yed, increases in dwell time, the gap requirements, and challenges with using 1:8 slope ramps. The latter group of railroads have generall y designed their systems with a single mini

- high platform, and expressed c oncerns about the impact of high platforms on shared freight operations. Most of these concerns are now moot due to the way the proposed rule has been revised. However, the newer s ys tems were also adamant that having to build new stations to a different design would reduce the s ys tem's accessibility as a whole, for example by

resulting in situations where passengers could board a car at one station but could not readily

alight from it in another station without a major change in railroad operations or staf fing. Again, these concerns relate largel y to the prior version of the rule rather than the final rule , though there could be cases where commuter rail agencies would need to employ effective passenger communication to prevent these situations. Some newer sy stems also have stations that serve cars of different floor heights, handling this either with bi

- level mini

- highs or a combination of mini

- highs and platform

- or car - based lifts. A limited number of rail systems, no tably Metra in the Chicago area , alre ady make extensive use of car- based lifts. With regard to cost data, the high level of variation in service levels, equipment, and labor costs among the railroads creates a wide range of quoted costs, and many of the submissions did not provide enough det ail on the sources of data or methods of estimation. According to some commenters, increasing staffing to one crew member per car in order to deploy bridgeplates at high

- level platforms would cost $2.1 to $3.5 million per year, and deploying these bridgep lates at each stop would increase dwell times anywhere from 90 seconds to 9 minutes. Information from another commenter indirectly suggested a cost of approximately $65,000 per car for adding a car - based lift. Estimates of high

- level platform construction costs were around $5 million, or around $9 million if tracks must also be moved. This figure would need to be adjusted to reflect only the incremental cost of a high platform compared to the agency ’s current standard (e.g. low platform with a single mini

- h igh). This cost information was taken into consideration in the cost anal ys is below, though in most cases the reported costs are not relevant for the final rule, or more detailed information was available. Likewise, although the issue of gauntlet tracks is somewhat less relevant for the new regulatory proposal, these estimates ranged from $1 to $15 million, depending on local conditions and right

- of

- way costs.8

**Interviews** Using the docket comments and the APTA route database, we made a list of systems th at were likely to have significant numbers of new or refurbished stations in the next 1 0 years. Then, via a combination of one

- on - one interviews, an APTA moderated phone call with commuter rail CEOs, and online research, we gathered information on their current plans for accessibility and their likely

response in the face of the new rule. To make the most of the information requests allowed b y the P aperwork Reduction A ct , we aimed for a sample that included geographic and sy stem diversity, and we also focused on new s ys tems still under construction that are not included in the 24 sy stems listed above: Denver FasTracks, Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) , and Sun Rail in Orlando, Florida. One

- on - one telephone interviews were conducted with:
 Virginia Railway Express
 Alaska Railroad
 Metra
 MBTA
 Tri

- Rail
 Denver FasTracks
 Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit
 Sun Rail
 North County

Transit District COASTER In addition, the Commuter Rail CEO group at APTA offered us their time during a conference call to gather information on the state of practice at various systems across the country . On the call were representatives from:

 Trinity

Railway Express
 Seattle Sounder
 North County

Transit District COASTER
 BNSF’s Passenger Operations, which works closely with Metra, the Seattle Sounder, and the Minnesota Northstar
 Caltrain
 Metra
 SEPTA
 Metro

-North
 Amtrak
 APTA ( Kathy Waters, chair of the group and former head of rail operations at MARC ) Between the interviews and the conference call, we were able to hear from a broad spectrum of commuter rail operations, ranging from the established sy stems of the Northeast and Chicago to the newer s ys tems in the West and South. This broad range view was important, as the regulation affects the ty

pes differently . For the purposes of this report, we divide d existing commuter railroads into three rough group ing s based on their current accessibility approach and likel y9

response. The first gro up consist s of the primarily older sy stems of the N ortheast; the second is the “New Starts” systems built after the passage of the ADA in 199 0 ; and the third group includes five s ys tems with unique characteristics

. Six commuter railroads that are either un der c onstruction or in final design were included as a fourth group for anal ys is.

**Table 2**  **. Primarily**  **Older Systems in the Northeast System**  **Stations Level**  **Mini**
  ** High** **Station Based**  **Lift Car**  **Based Lifts**  **No Accessible**  **Features Source** 

**MBTA** 134 24 73 37 Capital Improvement Plan and system map **Shore Line**  **East** 9 8 1 System website

**Metro -**  **North** 120 102 4 14 System website
**LIRR** 124 123 1 System website
**NJT** 153 57 18 78 System website
**SEPTA** 154 currently transitioning to level boarding where possible, meaning numbers are changing frequently System map, news articles, interview
Three of the s ys tems in the Northeast already have high

- level platforms at a majority of their stations (LIRR, Metro

- North, and Shore Line East) and use level boarding for new and altered stations wherever it is feasible . The other three, New Jersey Transit, SEPTA, and the MBTA , are currentl y transitioning their existing stations to level boarding where possible and using level boarding as their design standard for new stations. The MBTA has made a majority of its stations accessible through either l evel boarding or mini

highs. A ll new construction uses level boarding , including the entirety of the re c ently completed Greenbush Line and the propos ed South Coast Rail. SEPTA is transitioning line

- by

- l ine and current capital projects include the construction of high

- level platforms on the Doylestown line and mini

- highs on the West Trenton line. New Jersey Transit has recentl y completed its accessibili ty

requirements under the Key Station provision of th e ADA, and has incorporated level boarding into new construction, such as the Meadowlands Sports C omplex station. Overall, while all of these sy stems do share with freight along some part of the system, they own or control large portions of their right

- of

- way and have adopted level boarding as their standard10

wherever possible, especially for new stations , in keeping with existing regulations

. F or agencies in this group, the draft final regulation theref ore involves little change from exi sting regulations and agency

practices and would not be expected to have any significant cost implications. Operational impacts should also be quite limited since these agencies are already accustomed to having passengers board and alight at high platforms. New Jersey Transit , for example, mentioned in its earlier docket comments that having enough bridgeplates to meet demand can be a problem, but it is one that they are addressing already

.
**Overall cost**  **im pact of the**  **rule for this group of commuter rail services:** No significant impacts were identified ; these agencies’ existing practices and design standards meet or exceed the performance standard in the final rule

. While several sets of docket comments cited potential staffing or operational costs , these were based on a previous version of the rule and are generally not relevant to the rule as it has been revised. **Table 3**  **. Newer Systems Outside the Northeast**  **System Stations**  **Level Mini** 
**** **High Station** 

**Based Lift**  **Car**

**Based Lifts**  **No Accessible**  **Features Source** 

**Tri**
**- Rail**  18 18 System website **VRE** 17 17 Interview **Coaster** 8 8 Docket submission **ACE** 9 9 System website **Albu querque**  12 12 System website **Nashville** 6 6 System website **Sounder** 10 10 System website and docket submission **Trinity Railway**  **Express** ***** 10 10 Interview

**Portland WES**  5 5 System website **UTA Front Runner**  13 13 Docket submission **Northstar** 6 6 System website **Austin** 9 9 System website **Metrolink** 54 54 System website

***** **H as 2 mini** 
**- highs of two different sizes, one on each end of the platform, to**  **accommodate different sized cars**11

F or the newer s ys tems listed in the table above, the picture is more varied. These s ys tems were built after the ADA was passed, and accessibility features were inco rporated into system designs. However, because these services share track with freight services, they have (with some exceptions) been unable to use high platforms due to the refusal of f reight railroads to permit their use because of clearance issue s . As a res ult, all stations in these sy stems are accessible, but very few offer level boarding. Specificall y, m ore than three

- quarters of the newer sy stem s opted for mini

- high platforms . M ini

highs are generall y placed consistently at one end of the platform (e.g. the northern end), enabling the railroads to place a conductor in the corresponding car to provide assistance at each stop, and giving passengers some certainty as to their ability to board and alight

. Virginia Railway Express is the only

s ys tem in this group to have adopted solel y car - based lifts. Two sy stems were able to provide level boarding. In Portland, OR , gauntlet tracks were built to accommodate freight movements through station areas, while Austin purchased low

- floor non

FRA compliant cars (i.e., cars that do not meet safety standards for operating in mixed passenger - freight traffic) that provide level boarding on low platforms. ( In some way s , the Austin sy stem is more akin to a light rail system , but it runs on existing freight rail tracks, op erates during peak periods only , and is usuall y classified as commuter rail. There is time

- based separation from freight service to ensure s afety. ) Under the current regulatio ns, sy stems that use mini

- highs are required to double stop only if the accessible spaces in the car(s) aligned with the mini

- high are full. The new regulation states that “individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, must have access to all accessible cars in each train using the station.” This implies that if the cars in the consist that are not aligned with th e mini

- high are also accessible (i.e., excluding certain 1950s

- era vehicles that do not offer sufficient interior clearance for a wheelchair user) the train crew w ould be expected to honor a request from a passenger with a disability to board one of those other cars from the mini

- high, even if this requires double

- stopping. (Otherwis e, there would not be equal access to those other cars.) Honoring these requests would be a relatively infrequent occurrence: in most cases the disabled passenger would naturally prefer to board at the first opportunity rather than wait for re

- positioning , and the rule app lies onl y at new or altered stations, rather than s ys tem
wide

. Based on interviews with commuter railroads, the potential for additional double

- stopping does not appear to pose staffing or operational concerns. Tri

- Rail and Trinity Railway Express, both of which use mini

- highs and consider their disabled ridership to be high relative to other commuter railroads , stated in interviews that the affected population is still so small (around 0.5% of ridership) that such request s would be v ery infrequent , and that the time needed for occasional repositioning (about 90 seconds, as noted in the MBTA’s docket submittal ) is within scheduling tolerances and would not have significant impacts on operations , on - time performance, or costs. ( S uch a delay might be problematic for railroads that operate on much tighter timetables, for example along the bus y Northeast Corridor , but railroads on these corridors generall y use level boarding rather than mini

- high platforms.)12

Given the limited number of such stops that would realistically be required, th e occasional double

- stop is within the normal variation of travel times for most commuter rail trips , and indeed must be planned for even under current rules, which require doub le

- stopping when ever the accessible seating area is fully occupied . The costs in terms of additional travel time for commuter rail passengers have thus not been quantified here because of the small magnitudes involved , though they

are noted in the summary section below

. Additionally , VRE, because it uses lift

- equipped coaches, must, under the new regulation, ensure that all accessible cars that serve new stations are lift

- equipped. Currentl y, 64 out of the 70 cars that it operate s dail y are lift

- equipped , and VRE is planning to replace those few older cars as funds become available

. In an interview, VRE stated that it does not anticipate any additional costs from the rule , since they share with freight services and expect to have a 100% lift

equipped fleet by

the time any new stations are built or existing stations renovated. Even if this is not the case, the older cars are inaccessible Budd bi

- level cars, which appear to be excluded from the requirements of the rule

. Overall, based on the data collected and the interviews with railroads, the rule does not appear likely to have any

significant impact on accessibility costs or operations for this group of railroads. All of the s ys tems share with freight services, and as such would retain much of their existing flexibility

to use alternatives to level boarding , albeit subject to FTA approval

. Requirements to “double stop” on request at mini

- high platforms did not generate concern about operational or cost implications. Th e one agenc y in this group that could potentially be affected , VRE, would likely

still be in compliance with the rule and has already t aken steps to move toward greater accessibility

.
**Overall cost**  **im pact of**  **the rule for this group of commuter rail serv** **ices:** No significant impacts were identified for this group. There is the potential for small increases in operating costs and passenger travel times from an increased number of double

- stop s at mini

high platforms. Several sets of docket comments noted these costs, but the resulting cost estimates provided were not useful because they were based on the incorrect assumption that all cars of each train would need to stop at the mini

- high at every station, rather than simply upon request of a disabled passenger at stations that are built or altered after the final rule takes effect.13

**Table 4**  **. Other Existing**  **Systems System**  **Stations Level**  **Mini**
  ** High** **Station Based**  **Lift Car** 

**Based Lifts**  **No**

**Accessible Features**  **Source**

**Metra** 239 49 190 Interview and docket submission **South Shore Line**  20 12 3 5 System map **Caltrain** 32 5 19 19 8 System website **MARC** 43 8 1 14 20 System map and website **Alaska Railroad**  10 10 Docket submission

The five s ys tems above are those that do not fit neatly into either of the two major categories previously

discussed

. Metra, in Chicago, is the third

- busiest commuter railroad in the nation, with by far the most stations, some of which use street

- level boarding. Its commitment to providing access from s tations of all different heights has led it to use the car

- based lift as its primary accessibility

approach . Metra has equipped 60% of its fleet with carborne lifts, so that three cars in a five

- car consist are accessible . The other cars are Budd b i

- level cars from the 1960s and 1970s , whose interiors are not accessible. Based on our interview and a review of Metra’s vehicle inventory , it appears that all Metra cars in service are either lift

- equipped or are pre - 1980 vehicles with inaccessible interiors

. M etra plans to have its fleet fully accessible b y 2030 by buying new cars and phasing out the Budd cars . One of Metra’s eleven lines, the Metra Electric, already has level boarding at its 49 stations. 2 All other Metra lines are shared with freight. Metra’s application of this accessibility approach to any new and altered stations would therefore appear to be consistent with the rule : i t already provides level boarding on the line not shared with freight, and on the others it is moving toward full access via carborne lifts. While not all of its cars are accessible, the l anguage in the rule that passengers must have access to “all accessible cars” anticipates situations such as this, where the only cars that cannot be accessed (i.e. the remaining Budd cars) are themselves inherentl y inaccessible. The South Shore Line, operated b y the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, from Chicago to Northern Indiana is the last remaining interurban line

. It runs on Metra Electric’s track, with high l evel platforms , for a little over half its run before running almost like a trolley through the streets to South Bend Airport. While on the Metra Electric line and at the airport terminus, it has high platforms , and three stations have lifts, but five stop s have no accessibility

2 Some non - Key Stations on this line nonetheless remain inaccessible, because they lack elevators or other means to mo ve from street level to the elevated platform, but they all offer level boarding. Regulations regarding station access, as distinct from the platform

- vehicle interface, are not being changed by the proposed rule.14

features, including several where boarding is from the street level . Under both the current r ule and the draft final rule , if those stations are altered , the NI CTD will need to at least add a station

based lift and develop a plan to s taff and operate it, or provide level boarding if there are no freight conflicts. MARC Train and Caltrain have a number of similarities. They both took over passenger lines from freight railroads in the 1980s, just before the passage of the ADA, making them more similar to the older sy stems of the Northeast when it comes to accessibility . MARC uses a combination of level boarding, mini

- highs and station based lifts, while Caltrain uses mini

- highs, car- based lifts, and station based lifts. MARC still has a number of inaccessible stations that will need to be made accessible when they are refurbished at the end of their lifespan. However, this requirement exists under the current rule as well as under the draft final rule, and both rules would require level boarding in cases where there are no freight clearance conflicts. According to its web site, Caltrain only deplo ys car- based lifts at certain accessible stations where it also has station

- based lifts, and not all of its cars are lift

- e quipped. As Caltrain refurbishes its existing inaccessible platforms, it would, at a minimum, need to add a station

- based lift at each station , at a cost of $8,550 per lift. Again, however, this would need to occur under both the current and the draft final regulation s. One difference would be that under the draft final rule, the lift would need to be mobile (portable) to permit access to all cars, but mobile lifts are widel y available and do not appear to command any price premium over lifts that are no t portable

. Caltrain staff said in an interview that they would ideally

like to transition to mini

- highs, but due to funding constraints, they do not envision that in the near term
. The last sy stem is the Alaska Railroad, which runs a unique combination of passenger and freight services; it is classified as commuter railroad for certain reporting purposes (e.g., the APTA Factbook) even though most of its passenger services are long

- distance and vary seasonall y. The Alaska Railroad currently serves 10 st ations (plus flag stops on some routes), with accessibility

via station

- based lifts. They are considering a more conventional commuter rail service in Anchorage with five stations using diesel multiple units (DMUs ) and wheelchair ramps or mini

- highs. Alaska Railroad was the only railroad to suggest potential cost savings from the draft final regulation compared to existing rules . They have proposed station upgrades at three stations, two in preparation for the commuter rail service, and were told by FTA that they needed to provide level boarding (b y building gauntlet tracks, if necessary) if they modified the platforms. Because they share with freight along the length of their corridor, their understanding of the new rule is that it would allow them to find other ways to provide access on their projects. This would need to be confirmed, but suggests that the draft final rule would at least not have any negative cost implications compared to the current baseline

. (Alaska Railroad also expressed concern about which agency , FRA or FTA, would review its proposed accessibility

plans under the draft final rule.) In summary , f

or this group of railroads, there is again no significant cost impact from the regulation . Metra plans to continue its use car

- based lifts on the 10 of 11 lines that are share d with freight services and increase the percentage of accessible cars over time , and the South Shore Line, MARC, and Caltrain will require essentially the same set of accessibility upgrades under both the current and draft final regulation. In an interview, Alaska Railroad expressed hope15

that the rule will allow them to move forward on projects b y providing other options for providing access.
**Overall cost**  **im pact of the rule for this group of commuter rail services:**  No significant impacts were identified because the accessibility improvements that these railroads would need to make at new or altered stations under the final rule are essentiall y the same as those required under current regulations

. Docket comments citing other costs were based on the prior version of the rule and are generally no longer applicable.

**Table 5**  **. Proposed Systems System**  **Stations Level**  **Mini**
  ** High** **Station**

**Based Lift**  **Car**

**Based Lifts**  **No**

**Accessible Features**  **Source**

**Sonoma Marin**  **Area Rail Transit**  13 13 Interview

**Ann Arbor** 
**** **Detroit** 6 6 Project documents via S E Michigan Council of Government s website **KRM Wisconsin**  **Commuter Rail**  9 9 Project website

**Denver FasTracks**  28 22 6 Interview
**SunRail** 12 12 12 Interview **Denton County A** 
**** **Train** 6 6 Project website

In addition to the 24 sy stems already in operation, there are a number of s ystems in the planning, design, and construction stages. Of those, there are six which are likely to see some degree of operation within the 10

- year anal ys is period . One is Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART), which will run DMUs to 13 stations in Sonoma and Marin counties. They are currentl y planning to provide level boarding via gauntlet tracks and are w orking closely with Portland, Oregon, in their planning process. Southeast Michigan would like to see commuter rail between Detroit and Ann Arbor, on a shared freight line. Right now, they are exploring station

- based lifts as an opportunity

to start quickl y with refurbished cars from Amtrak. Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee, W isconsin, (KRM) are seeking funding for an extension of a Metra line from Kenosha to Milwaukee, providing access not only to Chicago but also from suburban Milwaukee into the city

center . This line would use Metra’s lift

- equipped cars. Sun Rail is Orlando’s16

planned commuter line, which is planning to operate lift

- equipped cars but also have mini

- highs. The Denton County

A

- train will use the same cars as Austin’s Capitol Metro to provide l ow floor level boarding. Because all of these lines share with freight ( except for Denton County , which is planning for level boarding) their accessibility approaches sh ould be acceptable under the rule , with no difference in costs compared to existing regulations

. The most complex new sy stem is Denver’s FasTracks program, which is also the only s ys tem that reported back a significant cost from the regulation . The commuter rail portion of the FasTracks program will consist of four lines, three of which wi ll not share with freight. The three lines that will not share with freight will have high

- level boarding. Th e fourth line is used by BNSF and routinel y carries over

- dimensional freight, posing alleged clearance issues for high platforms. Although a final decision on accessibility has not yet been made, FasTrac ks is leaning towards using car

- based lifts. Currently , they are planning to equip 9 cars, or a third of their fleet, with lifts. Each lift costs $50,000 to install (see cost estimates below), and each car require s one lift on each side , at a total cost of $100,000 per car. Equipping these 9 cars with lifts would cost roughl y $900,000. Un der the new rule, which requires access to all accessible cars, FasTracks would need to equip the remaining 18 cars at an incremental cost of $1.8 million.

**Overall cost**  **im pact of**  **the rule for this group of commuter rail services:**  An estimated $1.8 milli on in cost impacts due to need to equip additional cars on Denver’s Northwest Line with lifts.

**Additional Unit**  **Cost Information**  During the interviews, we gathered cost estimates of the various meth ods of providing accessibility . The range of reported costs is summarized below.

 Mini

- high platform : Costs cited ranged from $30,000 (SunRail , planned costs ) to $400,000 (MBTA , reported costs for a mini

- high being constructed at Wedgemere Station, out o f a total project cost of $2 million). 3 The difference s between these figures may be the result of different platform size and design standards, differing site constraints and labor costs, and/or weather conditions and the corresponding need for durability

.  High

- level platform: Estimates here ranged widely . Metrolink estimates that it would cost $1 million to make its mini

- high platforms high

- level , while the MBTA estimated $8

- 10 million , which includes the cost of demolition for the old platform, and ramping, canopies, and structures for the new one. Most estimates were around $ 5

- 6 million , though Caltrans said they could build a double

- sided platform with shelters and parking for $ 3 million.
 Low

- level platform: $ 4.1 to $5.5 million.
 Lift

- equipped car: $ 2.4 million (VRE) to $5.2 million (Denver). The incremental cost of adding a lift appears to be $50,000 per lift (Denver, SunRail, Metra) or $100,000 per car in cases where both sides of the vehicle require a lift

.
3 MBTA Board Meeting Notes, January 6, 2010, http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/board_meetings/ , and Assistant General Manager’s comments, http://transportation.blog.state.ma.us/blog/2010/02/wedgemere.html

.17

 Mobile s tation

- based lift: $8 ,550, according to a price quote from Adaptive Engineering, In c., a manufacturer.
 Gauntlet tracks: Estimates ranged from $0.7 million (SMART) to $15 million (MTA). After anal yz ing the estimates, the costs appear to break do wn as roughl y $1 million for platform and track laying, $2 million to install a signal with Positive Train Control capabilities, and additional costs for right

- of

- way acquisition, which varies widely according to local land values.
**Proposed Expansions**  From the APTA route database and interviews, we gathered information on other proposed routes, and found others via online research. Table 6, below, includes the plans we found that have begun the funding process. Some, like the new station for Shore Line Ea st, are very likel y to be constructed in the near future, while others, like Nashville’s 5 additional commuter rail lines, have been planned but are currentl y awaiting funding, demand estimates, or broader community

support. Using the cost data we acquired from interviews and docket submissions, we made estimates of the impact on potential expansions. (The MBTA ’s estimate of $8

- 10 million per high platform was not used with respect to planned new construction, because that estimate included significant cost s for demolition of the existing low platform and for canopies and other elements that are not required b y the rule .)

**Table 6**  **. Proposed Expansions**  System Planned

Extensions Planned

New Stations Accessibility

mode Potential Impact of Draft Final R ule

**MBTA** South

Coast Rail 8 L evel boarding None. Already planning level boarding **Shore Line**  **East** new

Westbrook station 1 Level boarding None. Already planning level boarding

**VRE** 7 C ar -based lift None. All expansions are on freight tracks and nearly all accessible cars in regular service are lift

- equipped. **Tri**
**- Rail**  14 Mini

-high None. All expansions are on freight tracks **Coaster** Infill 1 Mini

-high None. All expansions are on freight tracks **Albu querque**  Infill 2 Mini

-high None. All expansions are on freight tracks **Nashville** 5 other

lines ~30 Mini

-high **Likely no impact**

**– see**  **discussion below**  **Sounder** 2 Mini

-high None. Line shares with fre i ght **Portland** Salem

extension 3 L evel boarding None. Already planning level boarding.18

System Planned

Extensions Planned

New Stations Accessibility

mode Potential Impact of Draft Final R ule

**SunRail** Phase II 5 Mini

-high and car based lift None. All expansions are on freight tracks

**Northstar** St. Cloud 4 M ini

-high None. All expansions are on freight tracks **Fort Wor t**  **h** sw2ne 15 N ot yet determined Shares with fre i ght, so the only change

would be ensuring that lifts are on all cars if they plan to use car

-borne lifts **Austin to San Antonio**  Lone Star

Rail 16 N ot yet determined **Likely no impact**

**– see**  **discussion below** 
**Metra** Two

proposed exten s i ons and two new lines ~33 E ither car based lift or level boarding **Likely no impact**

**– see discussion below.** 

**Alaska Railroad**  Anchorage

Commuter Rail 5 M ini

-high or wheelchair ramp None. All expansions are on freight tracks

In N ashville and Austin

- San Antonio, decisions have not yet been made on whether the planned new services would run on freight

- shared track or newly built dedicated track. In the former case, the rule would have no cost impact since (with FTA approval) the railroads could use mini

high platforms , as Nashville already does, or another acceptable approach . In the latter case, the railroad s would need to provide level boarding, which would entail additional construction costs for high platforms. However, level boarding is already required b y current regulation wherever it is feasible, so there is no net difference between the requirements of the draft final rule and the current rule

. Analy sis of Metra’s expansion plans is complicated slightly by the fact that one planned segment of new track will not be shared with freight. Because the draft final regulation makes its exception in cases where the “line or s ys tem” (not segment) shares station

- area track with existing freight services, the curr ent approach appears to be acceptable. Conversel y, if this segment is viewed as a distinct line that does not share with freight, then level boarding would be required under the draft final rule, as it would be under the current rules (unless infeasible). Either way , there is no net impact from the draft final rule.

**Overall cost**  **im pact of**  **the rule for this group of commuter rail services:**  No significant impacts were identified because the accessibility features planned for these expansions appear to me et the performance standard of the final rule

.19

**Commuter Rail Summary** Overall , few railroads reported any significant cost implications from the rule in terms of station construction or rolling stock. In large part this is due to the similarity of the rule to existing requirements, and the provisions for services that share with freight trains. However, s ys tems that use carborne lifts as their accessibility approach wil l need to purchase more accessible equipment (or accelerate their planned replacement of non

- lift equipped vehicles) to ensure that access to all cars is available. Total incremental costs were estimated at $ 1.8 million. Reported operational impacts were also quite limited due to the modest nature of the changes. The most likely

impact would be additional double

- stopping at mini

- high platforms, with railroad staff describing this as a minor concern due to the relativel y infrequent requests that would be received. Agencies that make use of level boarding are already addressing staffing i ssues related to the use of bridgeplates. Likewise, the costs of FTA review and approval were not perceived to be significant, because of the review cycles that are built into the existing planning process for stations and services . (This could be different for one planned service, the Dento n County A

- Train, which does not p lan to seek Federal funding, except that this service already plans to use level boarding.) Several agencies noted or implied that the cost of accessibility features had led them to avoid non - essential alterations at some stations, to avoid “triggering” accessibility requirements at non

Key Stations. This had le d to a somewhat degraded environment at some stations, reducing the attractiveness of the rail service . To the extent that the rule would further increase the accessibility

- related costs of station alteration, this trend would be exacerbated, but again most railroads would not experience any major differences.20



### An **aly sis: Inter** **c it**  **y Passenger Rail Transportation**  **Background : A**  **mtrak Accessibility Status and Projects** Intercity passenger rail service in the U.S. is provided primarily b y the National Rail Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), a government

- owned corporation established for this purpose. 4 Amtrak serves over 500 stations, with total ridership of just over 27 million in fiscal 2009. The majority of Amtrak ’s route

- mileage runs on track owned b y freight railroads, particularly on its long

distance routes. However, Amtrak (and state agencies that work in partnership with Amtrak) own s the heavil y traveled Boston

- Washington Northeast Corridor as well as smaller passenger rail corridors in New England, New York, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Amtrak’s standards for platf orm heights relate to the floor height of the equipment that serves the stations. On the Northeast Corridor and certain other locations, platforms are high

- level (48”ATR), with level boarding. On other routes, platform heights are typi cally 8” A TR or low er, and accessibility , where it exists, is ty pi cally via a platform

- based lift, though there are some mini

- high platforms in use. A small number of stations also handle equipment with different floor heights and use a combination of platform heights and l ifts. Although many accessibility regulations appl y only to new or altered facilities, S ection 12162(e) of the ADA contains a separate requirement that all existing intercity rail stations be made accessible to persons with disabilities by July 26, 2010. For purposes of the ADA, a “station” generall y consists of property used b y the general public and related to the provision of rail transportation, including passenger platforms, designated waiting areas, ticketing areas, restrooms, but not flag stops (st ations at which Amtrak stops only on passenger request). Amtrak did not meet the 2010 deadline but continues to work toward the requirement. Section 219 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) required Amtrak to evaluate the condition of intercity stations that it serves and to report to Congress on: improvements needed to make such stations compliant with the ADA; potential barriers to achieving compliance; the identification of parties responsible for compliance; the costs associated with needed improvements; and the dates when such improvements can be made. Amtrak provided a report to Congress on February 1, 2009 entitled Intercity Rail Stations Served by Amtrak, A Report on Accessibility and Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A supplemental report was issued in October 2010 to update Congress on progress that Amtrak has made toward compliance with the ADA at stations it serves through 2010 and to describe plans for 2011. 5

4 Amtrak remains the nation’s sole provider of intercity passenger rail services. A number of small “heritage” railways and dinner trains continue to operate ov er short distances for educational and recreational purposes rather than inter

- city transportation as such. Recently, some states have also discussed the option of using other rail authorities and providers for planned high

- speed service, but no other entities are providing such service at this time. 5 Intercity Rail Stations Served by Amtrak, An Update on Accessibility and Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, October 27, 2010. http://origin.www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1237608345018&cid =124124566922221

Based on the latest dat a from these reports , there are now 482 Amtrak

- served stations that are required to be ADA compliant. Of these , Amtrak h as full responsibility for ADA co mpliance for 341 platforms, shared responsibility for 64 platforms , and no responsibility for 77 platf orms. In Amtrak’s reports, s tations were described as “not accessible,” “full y accessible , ” or as having
“barrier

- free access ” to platforms and trains . This last category covers situations where passengers with mobility impairments, including wheelchair users, can move from the street or parking facility

to the platform and board the train, yet certain elements of the station (e.g. restrooms) continue to be inaccessible. (Note that n one of these designations is equivalent to “ADA compliant,” which includes other features such as ADA

- compliant signage, accessible train information display

sy stems 6 , and tactile detectable warning strips .) Of the 482 Amtrak served stations that must be made accessible , Amtrak determined that 191 would not be fully

accessible in 2011, including 65 that would not even have barrier

- free access in 2011. Amtrak’s comprehensive Accessible Stations Development Plan assessed the costs associated with making each of these stations accessible to , and usable by , persons with disabilities. These costs include a modest figure for condition improvements due to deferred maintenance or for bringing stations up to state of good repair ( SGR) where necessary . A station in disrepair poses challenges that disproportionate ly affect travelers with disabilities. Therefore, in the context of rail stations, SGR work is integral to ADA work because in most instances, ADA improvements do not benefit passengers with disabilities unless the facility itself is in acceptable operating condition. Amtrak’s calculations were based on Amtrak’s Guidelines on Platform Design, which generall y calls for 48” ATR platforms on the Northeast Corridor and 8” ATR platforms on other routes. Amtrak’s report notes that portable wheelchair lifts are the standard approach to providing access to trains from the low platforms ty pically used outside the Northeast Corridor. Cost estimates are based on procurement of portable wheelchair lifts and wheelchair lift enclosures/protective sheds, and their installation at platforms. Amtrak also notes, however, that selected stations will use mini

- high platforms instead of portable wheelchair lifts. It further notes that in some station environments, these are intended only as temporary improvements, while in others they are intended as permanent. Based on these assumptions, Amtrak estimated the platform

- related costs of making these 191 stations accessible at $182 million, or $44 million for just th e set of 65 stations that lack barrier

free access. These estimates are based on the current set of regulations and do not include any potential impacts of the rule

.

6 Amtrak has Passenger Information Display Systems (PIDS) at many stations, but not all of those systems are fully ADA compliant. Amtrak has developed a fully compliant PIDS that provide both audio and visual messages for passengers

– including passengers who are deaf, hard

- of

- hearing, blind or visually impaired. Amtrak intends to deploy PIDS system

- wide, providing real

- time train status information and emergency messages controlled from Amtrak’s information technology system.22

**Table 7. Amtrak** 
**- Estimated Costs of Station Platform Accessibility Under Current Law**  **and Regulations**
Stations that Must be Made ADA Compliant 482 Stations not Fully Accessible in 2011 191

Amtrak Estimated Cost to Make These Platforms Fully Accessible (2009 dollars) ADA $173,463,000 State of Good Repair $8,623,000 Total $182,086,000 Stations not Barrier Free in 2011 65

Amtrak Estimated Cost to Make These Platforms Fully Accessible (2009 dollars) ADA $41,797,000 State of Good Repair $2,001,000 Total $43,798,000
**Potential Cost Implications of**  **Draft Final Rule**  As noted in Amtrak’s report, the railroad plans an extensive effort to renovate stations over the next 5 years to improve accessibility . These alterations would trigger the requirements of the rule to the extent that they occurred after the rule’s implementation date. In general, Amtrak’s current and proposed accessibili ty approach

– i.e., level boarding on the Northeast Corridor and other passenger corridors, and mobile platform

- based lifts at other stations where track is shared with freight

– appears to meet the performance standard of the rule

. Under the rule , FRA approval would be required for new or altered stations where level boarding is not planned

. Amtrak staff noted that FRA already reviews Amtrak’s plans for platform

- related work under the terms of Amtrak’s funding agreement. However, the current agreement allows Amtrak to proceed with work unless FRA raises an objection in a timely manner. The review provisions of the draft final rule now require that Amtrak receive affirmative FRA approval of a non - level boarding solution at a given station. Depending on the working relationship between Amtrak and FRA, this requirement could impose some small administrative costs and/or project delays for Amtrak

. The other area for potential cost implications would be in cases where track is not shared with freight and yet Amtrak plans for low platforms with mobile lifts rather than level boarding. In email correspondence, Amtrak reported ty pical construction costs of $2,200 per linear foot for 8” ATR platforms, versus $4,100 per linear foot for 48” ATR platforms. For a ty pical 1200

- foot platform, this equates to a pproximately

$2.3 million in incremental costs for each station that might require high platforms (or $1.3 million for the 700

- foot platforms used in short

- corridor service.) The additional cost per linear foot includes not only higher material costs due to the larger structure size but also the need for accessible ramps, stairs, and railings that come with a higher platform.23

We attempted to assess the number of stations where this situation might exist , using information from Amtrak’s report 7 on platform ownership. This indicated whether a platform was owned by a freight railroad or another non

- freight entity such as a local government, state DOT, or commuter rail agency . In those cases where a freight railro ad owned the platforms, it was assumed that the freight railroad operated freight trains on those tracks. Ownership of tracks was corroborated with the National Atlas of the United States

. 8 Amtrak’s latest sy stem timetable (Fall 2010/Winter 2011) was als o checked as a source of data on services and the status of barrier

- free and accessible stations. This information allowed us to determine an upper bound estimate on the number of stations potentially affected by

the rule in the near term , i.e. those stations that Amtrak plans to renovate, and where existing fre ight service may not be present

. Our anal ys is yielded a total of 34 such stations, of which 15 lack barrier

- free access, with the res t having barrier

- free access that is less than fully accessible (full list in the Appendix)

. This station count must be considered as an upper bound estimate

– it cannot be assumed that freight trains do not oper ate through those stations solely because the freight railroad doe s not own the platform/tracks. Amtrak sta ff stated that information on freight train passage is not kept in database form and would require station

- by

- station re search on operating rights

. Anecdotall y, a number of the stations on the list are known to have at least occasional freight service, and many others are on the Northeast Corridor or other state

- owned passenger corridors where level boarding is standard. Some (such as Woburn, Mass.) have even had high

- level platforms added after the compil ation date of the Amtrak report. Moreover, the rule makes its exception for freight in cases where freight service uses station

- area track on that line or sy stem , not just at the station in question. With these limitations in mind, w e compiled Amtrak’s own station

- level cost estimates for this subset o f 34 stations that may or may not have freight service. Amtrak estimates that improvement costs for these platforms would total a bout $13 million to $39 million, as shown in the table below. The lower figure is for p latforms at the smaller group of stati ons that do not have barrier

- free access . The higher figure also includes stations which do have barrier free access but are not full y accessible. These estimates are based on Amtrak’s calculations and the current set of accessibility regulations

.

7 Intercity Rail Stations Served by Amtrak, An Update on Accessibility and Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 8 US Department of the Interior, Railroads of the United States

. http://www.nationalatlas.gov/mld/railrdl.html24

**Table 8. Stations Potentially**  **Affected by**  **the Rule: A**  **mtrak Stations**  **to be Renovated Where Freight Service May Not Be Present**
Stations not Fully Accessible in 2011 191 Of These, Stations that May Not Have Freight Railroad Service **34**

Amtrak

- Estimated Cost to Make These Platforms Fully Accessible (2009 dollars) ADA $36,767,000 State of Good Repair $2,149,000 Total **$38,916,000** Stations not Barrier Free in 2011 65 Of These, Stations that May Not Have Freight Railroad Service **15**

Amtrak

- Estimated Cost to Make These Platforms Fully Accessible (2009 dollars) ADA $12,432,000 State of Good Repair $799,000 Total **$13,231,000**
Under the rule, the cost of accessibility improvements would exceed Amtrak’s published estimates by

$1.3 to $2.3 million per station wherever the following are true: (1) the station is on a line that is not shared with freight, and thus level boarding would be required under the rule , and (2) Amtrak’s cost estimation is based on a ( less expensive) low platform with mobile platform lift , rather than a full

- length high platform. Ultimately , i t was not possible to identify the specific stations where these conditions might exist, because Amtrak’s report cited general design standards and station size categories rather than station

- by

- station accessibility plans , and because Amtrak did not have station

- specific information about freight movements readil y available

. **More to the point, however, at any station where level boarding might be required under**  **the new**  **rule, it would also be required under existing regulations ,**  **unless technically**  **infeasible.** Therefore, while accessibility costs under the new rule could, for a handful of stations, conceivably exceed what Amtrak has estimated in its reports, the costs are essentially

the same as what would be required under current regulations. **High**
**- Speed**  **and Expanded Interc ity Passenger**  **Rail** In addition to current Amtrak services, several states and regions have high

- speed rail projects in the planning or design stages , funded through the High

- Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program and other initiatives

. These services would involve multiple new or renovated stations that could be affected b y the re quirements of the new rule. In general, high

- speed rai l services almost always employ

level boarding as their means of access because it minimizes station dwell time. For example, the New Haven

– Springfield corridor, which received HSIPR funding, plans to use level boarding at all stations. 9 Therefore, the rule is not expected to have any impact on these planned high

- speed services, because they

would use level boarding irrespective of the requirements of the rule . They would also be required to use level boarding , even under current regulations , unless it were not technicall y feasible. Existing FRA guidance for grantees, while not strictl y binding on all

9 Connecticut DOT bulletin, Spring 2009, http://www.nhhsrail.com/PDF/Newsletter_final.pdf

.25

projects, has also recommended the use of high platforms for high

- speed services: “[ T]he platform height should be equal to the car floor height. It is recognized that high

- level platforms may , on a site

- specific basis, entail facilities to protect freight operations (e.g., “gantlet” tracks). ” 10



### Cost Summary In general, the analysis indicates that cost impacts of the rule will be limited to a very small subset of new and altered commuter and inter

- city passenger rail stations

– namely , those that use an accessibility

approach that would be acceptable under current regulations but not under the draft final regulations , such as providing carborne lift s on some (but not all) cars

. Among current and planned commuter rail sy stems, these situations are few, and the required changes are relativel y minor (e.g., an additional $100,000 per rail car for lifts , or about 2% of the car’s $5.2 million purchase pric e ). Total compliance costs were estimated at about $1.8 million. There would also be some small operational cost impacts at a few sy stems where additional double

- stopping would be required at any new or altered mini

- high platforms. An additional set of potential impacts comes from a set of no more than 34 Amtrak stations that do not share with freight services but for which level boarding may not currently planned as part of the railroad’s accessibility capital program. In these cas es, however, level boarding is already required b y current regulations wherever it is technically and operationally

feasible. Therefore, there should be no change to the cost of the improvements under the rule, even if these costs exceed Amtrak’s publishe d estimates. Amtrak would also experience some administrative costs and potential project delays from the final rule’s requirement for FRA approval of accessibility plans at new stations. It was not possible to speak with representatives from every commuter railroad in the U.S. due to time and resource constraints and the restrictions of the PRA. Therefore, the discussion of likely impacts and costs should not be viewed as exhaustive, though for the reasons noted above, the available data and the many op erational similarities between railroads make it possible to forecast the general nature of the impacts with a reasonable degree of certainty even for railroads that were not contacted directly

.

10 Federal Railroa d Administration, Office of Railroad Development, Railroad Corridor Transportation Plans: A Guidance Manual, rev. July 8, 2005, p.5.26



### Benefits **Discussion Background**  As noted above, the rule is primarily aimed at promoting equal access to transportation services as a matter of civil rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act . Conventional benefits such as travel

- time savings or reductions in transportation

- related injuries are relativel y modest, as the rule’s provisions are aimed at a minority within the population. That being said, a large number of Americans have mobility impairments that affect their use of rail transportation. Approximately

3.3 million Americans (1.4 percent of the population) use a wheelchair or similar device, and another 10.2 million (4.4 percent) use another type of mobility aid, such as a cane, walker, or crutches. 11 Commuter railroads contacted in the course of this study indicated that roughl y 0.5 percent of their ridership consists of wheelchair users. Amtrak statistics for fiscal ye ar 2008 show that the railroad transported approximately 175,000 passengers who declared themselves as disabled and indicated that they would need the use of wheelchairs

– about 0.6% of total ridership. Amtrak estimates that approximately 9,000 other passengers who were mobility

- impaired did not declare themselves as disabled when they made a reservation. 12 Improved barrier free platform/train access benefits a population that extends beyond those of wheelchair users. According to the latest available Census data , of the 291.1 million people in the 2005 population of the United States, 54.4 million, or 18.7 percent, reported some level of disability . Of people aged 15 and older, 27.4 million (11.9 percent) had difficulty with ambulatory

activities of the lower body. About 21.8 million people (9.4 percent) had difficulty climbing a flight of stairs. Roughl y 3.3 million people (1.4 percent) used a wheelchair or similar device and 10.2 million (4.4 percent) used a cane, crutches, or walker to assist with mobility

. In addition , improved accessibility benefits many other passengers, such as those travelling with small children, infants in strollers, or carry- on luggage. Amtrak ridership among persons with disabilities has generally been growing (see table below for 2 001

- 2005 statistics). In2005, 223,996 passengers, or just under 1% of ridership, took advantage of the reservations service available to passengers with disabilities and their companions. The actual total may be higher, as some passengers with disabilities either do not make advance reservations or do not identify themselves as passengers with disabilities. 13

11 US Bureau of the Census, Americans with Disabilities, 2005. 12 Intercity Rail Stations Served by Amtrak, A Report on Acce ssibility and Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, February 1, 2009. 13 Before the Department of Transportation, Docket OST

- 2006

- 23985, Transportation for Individuals with Disabilities, Comm ents of National Rail Passenger Corporation, July 28, 2006
.27

**Table 9. Passengers with Disabilities Data**  **: Ridership**  **Calendar Year 2001 to 2005**

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Passengers with Disabilities 96,826 103,606 117,633 133,337 **143,971** Passengers with Mobility Impairment 55,289 51,509 55,790 57,551 **57,436** Companions 17,488 16,571 19,427 20,909 **22,590** Total **169,603 171,686**  **192,850 211,797**  **223,996**

**Benefits** The rule will ensure that travelers with disabilities will be able to access all cars of each train at new and altered rail stations, and that level boarding will be emplo yed wherever it is not precluded b y freight clearance . Although in many situations the rule does not differ greatl y from existing regulations or practices, the general effect will be to move rail services in the direction of improved accessibility. The rule’s use of an objective standard ( i.e., the presence or absence of freight service) for re quiring level boarding, rather than the current standard of “technically feasible , ” arguabl y gives greater clarity and predictability to rail providers regarding what is expected in each situation. By including an FRA/FTA review cycle in accessibility plan s ( other than for level boarding) it also ensures that these determinations are made fairl y . The rule also anticipates the need for continued freight movements and provides railroads with flexibility in meeting the accessibility performance standard in th ese cases. Overall, the primary

benefits of the rule’s move toward additional accessibility are as follows:

 First, the ability

to access all cars will promote a more integrated transportation setting, in which passengers with disabilities will less frequently be limited to particular boarding or alighting locations. In particular, in cases where level boarding is used, travelers who use wheelchairs will be able to board the train in essentially the same manner as all other passengers and with onl y m inimal intervention from staff. This is in keeping with the intent of ADA and other legislation to ensure that persons with disabilities are not unnecessarily treated differently

from others.

 Second, providing access to all cars improves the robustness o f the accessibility approach, ensuring that passengers with disabilities can continue to access a train even if a particular lift or mini

- high is out of service at that time. For example, in cases where only one car of each train is lift

- equipped, a mechanical failure of that lift would make the service completel y inaccessible. With all cars lift

- equipped or with the use of level boarding, this problem is averted. This represent s an important improvement to the de facto availability

of transportation servic es for passengers with disabilities, improving their ability

to reliabl y access jobs, appointments, and other destinations. For many travelers with mobility

impairments, access to inter

- city passenger rail transportation is particularl y important because of its role as an alternative to air travel, especiall y for28

travelers whose disabilities make it impractical or even impossible to use commercial air service.

 Third, the ability

to access any

car of the train can provide small travel

- time savings and other benefits for passengers with disabilities, inasmuch as they can choose a car that is closer to their parking space, transfer point, or final destination. Although the differences are usually

small, the layout of some stations is such that passengers mus t “backtrack” several hundred feet in order to use a mini

- high or lift, and this distance can be quite onerous for travelers with some ty pes of mobility

impairments. Creating access to all cars also helps to ensure that passengers with disabilities have e qual access to specialized cars, such as “quiet cars” where cellular telephone use is not permitted.

 Fourth, non

- disabled passengers will also tend to benefit from increases in the use of level boarding because of reductions in station dwell time, which c an improve travel time and reliability . Passengers with luggage, strollers, or other items also tend to find level boarding more convenient.29



### N **OTES / REFERENCES** American Public Transportation Association, Public Transportation Factbook, 2010. American Public Transportation Association , Public Transportation Infrastructure Database : Commuter Rail Route Segment Table, December 2008. National Atlas of the United States, http://www.nationalatlas.gov/mld/railrdl.html National Rail Passenger Corporation , Co mments Before the Department of Transportation, Docket OST

- 2006

- 23985, Transportation for Individuals with Disabilities, July 28, 2006

. National Rail Passenger Corporation, Intercity Rail Stations Served by Amtrak, A Report on Accessibility and Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 , February 1, 2009. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Intercity Rail Stations Served by Amtrak, An Update on Accessibility and Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 , October 27, 2010. Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad Development, Railroad Corridor Transportation Plans: A Guidance Manual , rev. July 8, 2005

. US Bureau of the Census, Americans with Disabilities , 2005.30



### INTERVIEWEES Mary Ainsley , MBTA John Bennett, Amtrak Frank Billue, FTA Region 4 Michelle Bouchard, Caltrain Tom Brooks, Alaska Railroad Lyn ette Ciavarella, Metra Bill Farquhar, TRE Kelly Anne Gallagher, APTA Margaret Griffin, FTA Region 1 Joseph Giulietti, Tri

- Rail Todd Hammerle, SunRail Chris tine Hoeffner, VRE James Hughes, FTA Region 1 Matthew Keamy, FTA Region 1 John L ackey , SMART Cy nthia Lister, SEPTA Maureen McCloskey , Paralyzed Veterans of America D

. J

. Mitchell, BNSF Joe Rago, Amtrak Brett Rekola, NTCD John Shonsey , FasTracks Stan Szabelak, FasTracks Scott Transue, NCTD Kathy Waters, APTA Warren Williams, SEPTA Martin Young, Sounder31

**Appendix A**  Amtrak’s Comments on the NPRM of 2006 provided additional data on platforms that then had high level platforms. 14 This same document lis ts the ty pe of Amtrak equipment stopping at each station and their associated floor heights, and those stations where commuter rail equipment shares the platforms with the floor heights of the commuter rail equipment.

14 Before the Department of Transportation, Docket OST

- 2006

- 23985, Transportation for Individuals with Disabilities, Comments of National Rail Passenger Corporation, July 28, 2006.32

**Am trak**  **Stations Po**  **tentially Affected**  **by the Rule**  **-- Might Not Have Freight Service & Not Barrier** 
**- Free in 2011** 
Costs of Platform Improvements (Thousands of 2009 dollars) Nominal Floor Heights of Cars Serving Amtrak and Shared Stations in 2006 Station State ADA Responsibility ADA State of Good Repair Total Station

Classification Stations

with 48" Platforms in 2006 Amtrak

Equipment Commuter

Equipment Nominal

Floor Heights
Laguna Nigual CA SCRRA/Amtrak $263 $0 $263 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed San Clemente Pier CA Amtrak $549 $76 $625 Small

- Platform

Unstaffed Surfliner Bombardier bi

- level 18 & 35" Mystic CT Amtrak $536 $85 $621 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Amfleet 51" Wallingford CT Town of Wallingford/Amtrak $534 $13 $547 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Amfleet 51" Windsor CT Amtrak $649 $23 $672 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Amfleet 51" Newark DE Amtrak/DTC $296 $6 $302 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Superliner Silverliners, Bombardier coach 51" Woburn MA MBTA/Amtrak $256 $0 $256 Small

Caretaker Amfleet Pullman

- Standard, Bombardier, MBB single level, Kawaski bi

- level 51"

Dowagiac MI Amtrak $769 $44 $813 Small

Caretaker Amfleet, Horizon, Superliner 18 & 51"

New Buffalo MI City of New Buffalo $322 $0 $322 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Horizon, Superliner 18 & 51" Ardmore PA SEPTA $1,430 $0 $1,430 Small

Caretaker Amfleet Silverliners, Bombardier coach 51" Coatesville PA Amtrak $1,066 $18 $1,084 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Amfleet 51" Downingtown PA SEPTA $1,519 $235 $1,754 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Amfleet Silverliners, Bombardier coach 51" Elizabethtown PA Amtrak $1,217 $160 $1,377 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Amfleet 51" Middletown PA Amtrak $1,563 $14 $1,577 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Amfleet 51" Mount Joy PA Amtrak $1,463 $125 $1,588 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Amfleet 51"33

**Am trak**  **Stations Po**  **tentially Impacted by**  **the Rule**

**– Might Not Have Freight Service & Not Fully Accessible in 2011**  Costs of Platform Improvements (Thousands of 2009 dollars) Nominal Floor Heights of Cars Serving Amtrak and Shared Stations in 2006

Station State ADA Responsibility ADA State of Good Repair Total Station Classification Stations

with 48" Platforms in 2006 Amtrak

Equipment Commuter

Equipment Nominal

Floor Heights Chatsworth CA SCRRA/Amtrak $1,452 $0 $1,452 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Surfliner Bombardier bi

- level 18, 35 & 51" Laguna Nigual CA SCRRA/Amtrak $263 $0 $263 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed San Clemente Pier CA Amtrak $549 $76 $625 Small

- Platform

Unstaffed Surfliner Bombardier bi

- level 18 & 35" San Diego

- Old Town CA NCTD $592 $18 $610 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Surfliner Bombardier bi

- level 18 & 35" Solano Beach CA NCTD $1,969 $0 $1,969 Medium

- Staffed Surfliner Bombardier bi

- level 18 & 35" Berlin CT Amtrak $258 $1 $259 Medium

- Staffed Amfleet 51" Hartford CT Amtrak $1,713 $763 $2,476 Medium

- Staffed Amfleet 51" Meriden CT Amtrak $901 $0 $901 Medium

- Staffed Amfleet 51" Mystic CT Amtrak $536 $85 $621 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Amfleet 51" New Haven CT State of Connecticut $739 $0 $739 Large

- Staffed Y Acela, Amfleet 51" New London CT Amtrak $1,043 $0 $1,043 Medium

- Staffed Y (also 8") Acela, Amfleet Comet 51" Wallingford CT Town of Wallingford/Amtrak $534 $13 $547 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Amfleet 51" Windsor CT Amtrak $649 $23 $672 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Amfleet 51" Newark DE Amtrak/DTC $296 $6 $302 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Superliner Silverliners, Bombardier coach 51" Wilmington DE Amtrak/DELDOT $726 $0 $726 Large

- Staffed Y (also 8") Acela, Amfleet, Heritage, Viewliner Silverliners,

Bombardier coach 51"

Boston

- Back Bay MA MBTA $2,981 $53 $3,034 Medium

- Staffed Y Acela, Amfleet Pullman

- Standard, Bombardier, MBB single level, Kawaski bi

- level 51" Springfield MA Amtrak $1,649 $84 $1,733 Large

- Staffed Amfleet 51"34 Costs of Platform Improvements (Thousands of 2009 dollars) Nominal Floor Heights of Cars Serving Amtrak and Shared Stations in 2006

Station State ADA Responsibility ADA State of Good Repair Total Station Classification Stations

with 48" Platforms in 2006 Amtrak

Equipment Commuter

Equipment Nominal

Floor Heights

Woburn MA MBTA/Amtrak $256 $0 $256 Small

- Caretaker Amfleet Pullman

- Standard, Bombardier, MBB single level, Kawaski bi

- level 51"

Aberdeen MD Amtrak/MARC $1,376 $24 $1,400 Small

- Caretaker Amfleet Kawaski bi

- level, Sumitomo single level 51" Dowagiac MI Amtrak $769 $44 $813 Small

- Caretaker Amfleet, Horizon, Superliner 18 & 51" New Buffalo MI City of New Buffalo $322 $0 $322 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Horizon, Superliner 18 & 51"

St. Louis MO City of St. Louis $1,415 $0 $1,415 Large

- Staffed Amfleet, Horizon, Superliner 18 & 51" Albany

Rensselaer NY CDTA Facilities, Inc./Amtrak $725 $0 $725 Large

- Staffed Y Amfleet 51"

Poughkeepsie NY Metropolitan Transportation Authority/Metro

North $1,717 $39 $1,756 Small

- Caretaker Amfleet M

- series MU, Bombardier coach 51" Ardmore PA SEPTA $1,430 $0 $1,430 Small

- Caretaker Amfleet Silverliners, Bombardier coach 51" Coatesville PA Amtrak $1,066 $18 $1,084 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Amfleet 51" Downingtown PA SEPTA $1,519 $235 $1,754 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Amfleet Silverliners, Bombardier coach 51" Elizabethtown PA Amtrak $1,217 $160 $1,377 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Amfleet 51" Exton PA SEPTA $1,976 $52 $2,028 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Amfleet Silverliners, Bombardier coach 51" Middletown PA Amtrak $1,563 $14 $1,577 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Amfleet 51" Mount Joy PA Amtrak $1,463 $125 $1,588 Small

- Shelter

Unstaffed Amfleet 51" Paoli PA Amtrak $1,204 $77 $1,281 Medium

- Staffed Amfleet Silverliners, Bombardier coach 51" Dallas TX City of Dallas $253 $0 $253 Medium

- Staffed Superliner Bombardier bi

- level, Budd RDC 18 & 35"35 Costs of Platform Improvements (Thousands of 2009 dollars) Nominal Floor Heights of Cars Serving Amtrak and Shared Stations in 2006

Station State ADA Responsibility ADA State of Good Repair Total Station Classification Stations

with 48" Platforms in 2006 Amtrak

Equipment Commuter

Equipment Nominal

Floor Heights Richmond

- Staples Mill Rd. VA Amtrak $1,646 $239 $1,885 Large

- Staffed Amfleet, Heritage, Viewliner 51"36

**Appendix B. Summary Table**  **of Docket Comments, 2006 NPRM Commenter**  **Commenter**

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

Delaware DOT: Operate Delaware

Transit Corporation (DTC), commuter rail contracted to SEPTA, share track with Norfolk Southern E ither bridge plates stored on station platforms (not enough for each door to have one) or mini

-highs with folding bridgeplates, one mini high per platform Not if each door

is required to have a bridgeplate. Use of the single mini

-high could potentially require double

stopping P roviding access to ALL

cars will increase dwell times, which must be maintained precisely on the NEC. L ike all passengers, disabled passengers should be expected to go to the door nearest them, thus only one or two bridge plates needed N one37

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

North Coast Transit District: COASTER commuter

rail: use 28 Bombardier Bi

- Levels (floor height 24" above track) an d seven MK Rail F40 or EMD F59 locomotives, shares with BNSF. 8 stations, some shared with METROLINK and Am trak Pacific Surfliner designed for one

Mini

-high and bridge plate per track, Use of the

single mini

-high could potentially require double

stopping t o be in compliance Should not apply to new

stations within existing SYSTEMS. If you don't do it system

-wide, you could enter a car accessibly and then not have a mini high when you got out, leading to double spotting. A variety of floor heights operate in CA If they were required to install and operate mini highs at all car doors, they would need to add another crew member to each train. One new crew member = 125,000. With five consists that comes to 625,000 a year. If they did not add a crew member, dwell times could increase from 30

- 45 seconds to over 90 seconds, which would require the purchase of an additional consist = 250,000 for two new crew members, plus annual operating and maintenance funding at $380,00038

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

Metra (x2): 10 out of 11 lines share

ROW, 11th is the Metra Electric. 244 stations, 5 downtown terminals, 1,000 + cars (75% have track

- level boarding, 25% are electric with high

- level boarding) 62% of stations are fully accessible, 11% partially. Planning potentially 4 new lines, all on existing freight railroads Level boarding with bridge plates on Metra Electric, Car

-borne lifts on 60% of diesel vehicles meaning 2 fully accessible cars on each diesel train (cost of installation: 30 million) Plan to have all cars with lifts by 2030 not on 10 of 11

lines until 2030 High

- level platforms may

obstruct drivers views, not enough space at stations to build gauntlet tracks, share ROW Making all cars high

- level would require replacing the fleet at a cost of 2.5

- 3.0 billion equipping 479 cars for 30 mi llion provides rough estimate of $62,630 per car - based lift

Borough of Elizabethtown, PA: restoring an historic

station to make it handicap accessible mini

-high Use of the single mini

-high could potentially require double

stopping to be in compliance historic station canopy is

too low for high

- level platform

Nashville: 6 stations, share track

with Nashville and Eastern Railroad Corporation mini

-high and bridge plates depends on how

many mini

highs they have gauntlet tracks create more

work for the railroad dispatcher and increase the potential for accidents gauntlet tracks = 1,000,00039

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

Michigan DOT: Likely writing in

concerning Amtrak Michigan Services, although there are proposals for commuter rail in Detroit and Ann Arbor. The docket submission does not provide a context. V arying floor heights, freight ROW, and tolerances prevent level boarding; the whole consist should be viewed as a unit that is accessible or not, and DOT should define 'technically or operationally infeasible' DART/FWTA: T rinity Railway Express:

share with BNSF, operates two types of cars with two different floor entry heights, light rail shares track at key stations and is yet a third level. Average trainset is either 3 bi

- level cars (6 doors) or two rail diesel cars (3 do ors). Use one attendant and one engineer. provide access via bi

- level mini

-highs Use of the

single mini

-high could potentially require double

stopping to be in compliance Existing stations may

already be sited along curves where recommended tolerances are exceeded, most modern cars have pocket doors that cannot be flush with the exterior, is removing at

- grade crossings a safety feature which would need to be replaced at all stations, rather than a few, need a dimensional definition of the word "narrow". Do not share platforms with Am trak, why should they match car floor heights? If they needed a bridge plate at all doors, dwell time would triple or they would need one attendant per car which would have a total cost of $2,134,600 a year, equal to 15% of the operating budget. Since they cannot, in fact, have full high platforms because of two different car heights, they would have to stop at each mini

-high, a solution so onerou s they would likely recommend ceasing service40

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

Metrolink (Riverside County Transportation Commission sent in additional information): Southern California

Regional Rail Authority: 54 passenger stations, 40,000 daily riders on 145 weekday trains over 635 tra ck miles, of which it owns 297, the North Coast Transit District owns 338, and BNSF and UPRR own the rest. 619 miles of track are shared with BNSF and UPRR, and 219 are shared with Am trak. Cars are 25" above track. Amtrak serves 20 stations. Riverside lett er mentions a Perris Valley expansion. one mini

-high at each station Use of the

single mini

-high could potentially require double

stopping to be in compliance DOT has previously

clarified that double

stopping would not be necessary except when wheelchair spaces in the car at the mini

-high were already taken. The Hoyt Cinemas court case says that disabled persons cannot expect to sit anywhere, can they expect to board anywhere? Placing platform at rail car floor height would cost 1,000,000 per platform, maki ng total estimated cost $85 million, no space for gauntlets, bridgeplates would add 5

- 9 minutes, for average length (4 cars) on average line (11 stations) avg . trip time would increase from 1:45 to 2:45, while the longest trains (6) on the longest routes ( 14) would go from 2:20 to 4:15.41

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

SEPTA (2x): 352 commuter rail cars,

13 rail routes, and 35 million passenger trips in FY10. Shares track with Am trak and freight, has infrastructure over 100 years old. high level platforms only, but not with enough bridge plates for every car Not if each door

is required to have a bridgeplate. Level boarding clearly

preferable . Where not possible , multiple mini

highs or multiple lifts would place too many potential hazards on the platform and block the conductor's l ine of sight. Number of bridge plates should be left to the determination of the operator. Damage to passenger platforms by freight railroads is a result of freight railroad negligence, not poor platform design. The restriction on objects within 6’ of the edge should apply only to continuous objects like walls, rather than to columns, and should not apply to existing obstructions even when the station is being modified to come up to ADA standards. NEC trains are 51" above tracks, not 48"

. Two gauntlet trac ks = 20 million dollars, not including any station relocation or additional real estate needed42

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Agency: Seattle Sounder: operates

on tracks owned by BNSF. 9

- 12 stations (3 proposed), 3 of which are also served by Am

trak, 58 cars, 11 locomotives, all Bombardier. Use 36 cars and 3 locomotives, rent out others, track used by DOD mini high platform with ramp to train Use of the

single mini

-high could potentially require double

stopping to be in compliance Transit Cooperative

Research project has research on this issue, due out just after end of proposed comment period. Gauntlet tracks increase safety risk. Inset doors provide an extra step that helps the Sounder comply with host railroad needs. 1:8 ramps would require the assistance of train personnel for those whose age or infirmity would prevent them from managing such slope, and may weigh more than the 30 pound OSHA standard. Having designated cars for disabled passengers make it easier for emergency personal to find them in the event of an accident, Am trak uses 48", 25" and 15" Bridge plates at every door would require an additional crew member per train, at a cost of 2.7 million a year.43

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

Utah Transit Authority: commuter rail service

between Salt Lake City and Ogden and Provo (proposed at time of submission, but Ogden is now operational and SL

- Provo is under construction according to the website) 13 stations including Salt Lake Central and the new Provo line use car with 8 wheelchair spaces as first train car, pulls up to mini

high with bridge plate Use of the

single mini

-high could potentially require double

stopping to be in compliance 1:8 ramp is feasible. given

FRA safety requirements, commuter rail cars will have to be 25" above, can't always make 6 foot cle arance without rebuilding highways or failing to provide cover at stations, wheelchair riders would need to let conductors know which car and which stop. Could install button system, but subject to mischievous uses. Need rail cars with automatic bridge plates.44

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

NJ Transit: 11 lines, 162 stations, 67

of which are accessible. 35 key stations, 31 of which are accessible with the other 4 under construction or in design (probably done by now), level boarding with bridge plates Not if each door

is required to have a bridgeplate. Cannot meet gap

requirements; already have stored bridgeplates, retractable edges, a gauntlet track, and mini

highs and highs. Currently, distance from centerline to edge is 67" and standard car with is 10' , which leaves a 7" + gap. Current floor height and platform height are both 51" but vary more than 5/8" especially at Metro Park and Matawan. NJT concurs with FRA on allowances. Do not wish to increase reliance on bridge plates due to potential delay, al so feel that bridge ramps are performing well, but are looking to place some on vehicles and increase the number in stations, make mobility devices conform to standards that include securement locations.45

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

CA DOT (2x) + capital corridor sent in own letter: San Joaquin and Capital

Corridor share with UPRR and BNSF and are used by DOD, service 25 stations. Capital Corridor serves 170 miles of track (all but 2 of which are owned by UPRR) and links San Jo se, O akland/San Francisco, and Sacramento. Links to accessible buses and is third busiest Amtrak route. Capital Corridor has 8" platforms. Pacific Surfliner shares with Metrolink and Coaster. Operate 128 cars with a height of 18.5" San Joaquin and Capital corridors use wheelchair lift equipped cars (78). Pacific S urfliner uses mini

-highs and bridgeplates San Joaquin and

Capital Corridor: yes PS: Use of the single mini

-high could potentially require double

stopping to be in compliance Amfleet cars measure 51"

at top of rail. Local commuter rail Metrolink, Coaster, Caltrain, and ACE all have 25" heights and share stations, making level platforms difficult. Capital Corridor California cars and Am trak S uperliners have 18.5" floor heights. 2010 updated cost figures increased the cost per station from 6.5 million to 14.2 M , with the breakdown as follows: Cost of new 2,500 ft. station track: Design, Grading and Utilities (per station): $ 2.0M, Track Construction

- (per station): $ 2.2M Signal Construction

- (per station); $ 2M Platform W/Shelters and Parking (Double Sided): $3 M, Relocate Transportation Center (Depot, property, utilities, etc); $5 M; Total estimated cost for station modifications (per station): $14

. 2 M Number of stations in California with intercity rail service: 56 Estimated cost of modification to all stations:$795 .2M4 6

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

ARRC (2x): 500+ miles, 500,000

passengers in 2005. 80% of revenue from freight operations, low level platforms with long trains: 4 platforms allow for 20 car trains, and 2 for 10+. 7 consists serving 10 stations on peak days in summer Considering expansions. Part of STRACNET. Varying car floor heights. Flag stop service, meaning that not everyone boards from a station, but can provide lifts at certain whistle stops. Some stops have pop ulations under 1,000. wheelchair lifts at all stations yes, if only one

mobile lift is required Will flag stop service be

exempt? Exposed ramps will get icy. At 51", standard dynamic clearance is 7'8", so a high platform would need to be placed 30" from the car, also must clear snow 23' from track centerline.47

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

South Florida RTA: Tri

- Rail: 18 stations on

72 miles of track shared with Amtrak and CSX, just renovated 9 stations and added 1. Amtrak serves 5. All platforms are 8" from top of rail. Coaches are 25 ” and Am trak is 51". Planning to buy 14 trailers and 10 cab cars from SCRRA with a 25" floor height. Also getting two DMU, which are 51" and will have a wheelchair lift and a trailer car in the middle at 25". Only the cab car has an ADA restroom, so they put it at the mini

-high. Unclear whether the DMU trailer car will pull up to the mini

-high. For tri

-rail, use mini

-high at north end, for Amtrak use mobile lift. New DMUs will have car based wheelchair lift. Use of the

single mini

-high could potenti ally require double

stopping to be in compliance. Solutions can be found to

board at two different heights, do not need level boarding. The restroom retrofit cost 100,000+ each.48

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

RTD: Four proposed corridors.

Two corridors share tracks with BNSF (44 mi les) or UPP (a few miles), Denver Union Station is hub, used by Rio Grande Ski Train and Amtrak. BNSF contract limits platforms to 8" and 5' 4" from track centerline. Initially thinking about 4 cars. Unclear . Still under construction. Potentially waiting for new ruling Unable to make vertical clearance requirements without adjustable leveling cars, and can only meet horizontal clearance with an 8" platform. The ramp for an 8" platform would need to be 6 feet long so RTD concurs with FRA. Staffing requirements would double if bridge plates needed to be deployed at every car. You cannot force a Class I railroad to meet these restrictions. They will just deny access. Unfair to those just starting out. If excessive cost can keep an existing system from retro fitting, it should also be defined and available to new system developers as an exception.49

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

Triangle Transit Authority: (Plans may have been

changed or cancelled): Diesel multiple units on a track owned by N orth C arolina railroad and on track owned by T TA (purchased from CSX). Will operate separate from Amtrak and freight rail on double track 26 ft from existing track. Cars and platforms are 51" high. Extensions will be on freight rail corridors. level boarding yes No solution for sharing between commut er rail and freight is adequate.

San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Altamont Commuter

Express: 3 weekday roundtrips between Stockton, CA and San Jo se, CA. 88 miles long, 84 owned by UPRR and 4 by Caltrain. 9 stations, 3 owned by San Joaquin RRC. mini

-high Use of the single mini

-high could potentially require double

stopping to be in compliance Heights vary among cars

serving the station, and UPRR can't have platforms higher than 18".

Normal, IL Designing new

intermodal station using 5309 funds. Initial design has 8" platform, which already 48" from main entrance. Track owned by UPRR either car or platform based lift currently

unknown Heights vary among cars

serving the station, and UPRR can't have platforms higher than 18".50

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

MoDOT: 12 stations served by

Am trak: Amtrak owns one, the state owns one, local towns own 10. The state of MO pays at most $25,000 a year for all stations. Tracks shared with UP. wheelchair ramps Only if they are mobile and one per station is sufficient. If the y are immobile, could potentially require double

stopping to be in compliance Use both 51 and 18.5

heights. Many platforms are shorter than even the 3

- car trains and block the street while stopped.51

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

MTA: none provided in docket bridge plates stored on LIRR and MNR Not if each door

is required to have a bridgeplate. Concur with FRA. Want to

maintain 1:4 and 1:6 ramp standards or will have to replace ramps. Ramps that meet 1:8 could not be stored on board trains and would require two crew me mbers and a st ation based lock box. Cannot always meet gap requirements of 10" and 13". Also, ask what if wheelchair user cannot have independent access? The MTA crew assists wheelchair users while manually deploying the bridge plates. NEC height is 51 inches, not 48. Gauntlet = 15 million52

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

Cascades Runs from Eugene, OR

to Vancouver BC via Seattle, 60,000 annual ridership (up 76% from 1994), Amtrak operates on behalf of WSDOT, and also runs the Empire Builder (Seattle, Portland, Chicago) and the Coast Starlight (Seattle to LA). WSDOT owns 3/5 of trainsets and has spent 270 million on Cascades since 1973. onboard train lifts yes, if they are on every car Talgo, superliner, and

Bombardier all have different floor heights. Building a new station in Stanwood, WA costs 5 million for an 8" platform.

PA DOT: Norfolk Southern moves

freight along the Keystone Corridor mini high Use of the single mini

-high could potentially require double

stopping to be in compliance freight lines cannot have

high platforms 5 million per platform for high boarding, 2 million for gauntlet track.53

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

MBTA: 126 stations, 55 train

sets, 463 trains per day. 25 stations are full length high platforms , 58 have mini

-highs. The full highs include terminal platforms, O ld C olony stations, Rowley, and B ack B ay. Each coach has a standard bridge plate. If the mini

-high does not have a standard bridge plate, it has its own. No station agents except in Boston, so the train crew operates all plates (anywhere from 1 conductor to 1 conductor and 3 assistants). Mini highs are located at the outbound end, vary by station Use of the single mini

-high could potentially require double

stopping. Stations without mini

-highs are unclear in the level of service provided Itwould take 10 minutes

for each car to stop at the mini high Consists = 10 million +54

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

Am trak (2x): Serve over 300,000

disabled passengers. Is the responsible party at about 425 out of the 515 stations it serves (the other 90 a re owned by public entities). 50 stations renovated since 1991 varies by station varies by station No uniformity in rail car heights. Opposition from historic preservationists, even just to build a shed to house a station based wheelchair lift. Conflicts with freight clearance and DOD needs. 2

- 4 million for gauntlet or bypass tracks

S edalia , MO: Examp le of small

business impact. Sedalia Downtown development incorporated owns station, rails owned by UPRR, 3 car train. mechanical lift yes, if mobile lift is sufficient to "provide access to all accessible cars" At 15", need setback of 6

-

12" creating a lo ading hazard for all passengers. Would not be compatible with Superliners

.

Caltrain; 34 stations, no low floor

cars, 1 accessible car with 2 wheelchair spaces per train (from website) use a combination of platform lifts, onboard lifts, and mini

-highs only one

accessible car per train, so theoretically in compliance varying floor heights,

conflict with state regulations,55

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

MARC: Share tracks with CSX

and another company, have 40 stations without level platforms. varies by station varies by station Crossing tracks with high platforms necessitates tunnels, bridges, elevators, etc. What about situations where high

- level platform is shorter than train? Is double stopping required? Need to pay attention to military needs. 5 to 6 million to construct high level platforms at Halthorpe, MD, 203 million for the tunnels, elevators, etc.

Downeaster: Five roundtrips between

Portland and Boston, 329,000 riders, a 31% increase over the previous year not stated unknown concurs with Amtrak and CADOT



### Comments from Non

- Operators

Railroads for National Defense: branch of DOD responsible for maintaining

railroads' capability to move military equipment n/a n/a Certain rail lines need to be able to have M

- 1 tanks pass through. These are STRACNET designated and could not have high

level platforms. Raul Bravo: consulting company n/a n/a lays out reasons why level boarding cannot be implemented across the56

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

board, no long er relevant given changes to proposal Midwest High Speed Rail Association: Advocacy organization n/a n/a gap standards are too strict, deploying bridge plates for all users would increase dwell times, please create a national standard and do not make platforms higher than 15" over TOR, preferably 8" Nippon Sharyo: car manufacturer n/a n/a all commuter railroads are already in compliance with ADA, multiple car heights on same train/same regions, vehicle mounted wheelchair lifts can facilitate the eva cuation of physically disable passengers in emergency situations (if they can be manually operated) Association of American Railroads: Speaking for freight railroads in particular n/a n/a summarizes objections of other docket submissions NARP National Association of Rail Passengers n/a n/a against the regulations because of potential service reductions due to increased costs Empire State Passenger Rail Association New York specific passenger rail group n/a n/a against the regulations because of potential service reductions due to57

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

increased costs

Ohio Rail Development Corporation: branch of Ohio DOT n/a n/a would be too expensive without federal funds to back it, would limit the growth of railroads in Ohio Bombardier: car manufacturer n/a n/a concurs with FRA on gap requirements and believes even the more tolerant gap requirements cannot always be met, notes varying floor heights, and states that the assertion that mini

-highs create dangerous spaces is not based on fact, need better definition of accessible car BNSF: freight railroad n/a n/a provides evidence for why freight rail and high platforms cannot co

- exist58

**Commenter Commenter** 

**Background Current practice**  **(if operator) Would this be** 

**in compliance with**  **the regulation**  **? Points made**  **in**

**comments Cost Estimates if provided** 

Commuter Rail Operators Group: taken from a presentation made by the group to

the FTA n/a n/a These included comments that DOT ADA regulations do not require level boarding, that there has been no demand for more than one accessible car per train, that mini

high platforms have proven to be reliable and cost effective, and that freight clearances prevent level boarding. A train be considered as one "vehicle" for ADA purposes, in the same manner as an articulated bus or light rail vehicle, and that providing integrated access to the train would result in longer travel times and longer dwell times, which would impact the ability of a commuter rail system to provide frequent, fast service Burbank Advisory Council on Disabilities Based in Burbank, CA. Entire town voted to

oppose. n/a n/a against the regulations because of potential service reductions due to increased costs5960 

### REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT ANALYSIS **Introduction** The Regulatory

Flexibility

Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C §601 et seq.) requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final rules on small business, small organizations and small Government jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C §603 requires agencies to prepare and make available for public comments initial and final regulatory flexibility

analysis (RFA) describing the impact of proposed and final rules on small entities. Section 603(b) of the Act specifies the content of a RFA. Each RFA must contain: 1. A description of the reasons why action by the agency

is being considered; 2. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for a final rule; 3. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the final rule will apply ; 4. A description of the projected reporting, recording keeping and other compliance requirements of a final rule including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the ty pe of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; 5. An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate , overlap or conflict with the final rule; 6. Each final regulatory

flexibility

anal ys is shall also contain a description of any significant alternatives to the final r ule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the final rule on small entities. **What is a small entity?** The RFA recognizes and defines three kinds of small entities: (1) small businesses, (2) small non -profit organizations, and (3) and small government jurisdictions.61

Small businesses

. Section 601(3) of the RFA defines a “small business” as having the same meaning as “small business concern”, which is defined under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. Small business or small business concern includes any firm that i s independentl y owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation. The SBA has established size criteria for all m ajor industry sectors in the United States. Small organizations . The RFA defines “small organizations” as any not
- for

- profit enterprise that is independentl y owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Small governmental jurisdictions . The RFA defines small governmental jurisdictions as governments of citie s, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of fewer than 50,000.
**Description of the reason why action by the agency is being considered** The Department is proposing to amend its Americans with Disabil ities Act (ADA) and Section 504 regulations to update requirements concerning rail station platforms.
**Objectives of, and legal basis for, the final rule** The draft final rules concern integrated access for persons with disabilities to trains serving new or altered intercity and commuter rail station platforms. The Department believes that in choosing accessibility solutions it is important

– as the Department’s 504 regulation has long stated (49 CFR 27.7(b)(2))

– that service be provided “in the most int egrated setting that is reasonably achievable.” The Department proposes to specificall y include this principle in its ADA regulation as well. The implication of this principle in the rail station context is that the accessibility solution that provides s ervice in the most integrated setting should be chosen.
**Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the final rule will apply** The rule applies to commuter rail and intercity rail station platforms built or altered after the effective date. Commuter rail operators and Amtrak, the intercity passenger rail operator, both of whom would generall y have responsibility for ADA compliance of station platforms, are not small governmental jurisdictions.62

Data on the ownership and ADA respons ibility of the platforms at individual commuter rail stations were not available for this anal ys is. The assumption is that all are owned by commuter rail agencies which are not small government jurisdictions. Thus this anal ys is represents a lower bound e stimate of the proposed rule’s impact on small entities. Anecdotal information indicates that there may be situations on some of the older s ys tems, e.g., Metra and Metro

-North, where portions of the station complex are owned or maintained by

local governments. However, the actual number of cases where a local government unit with a population under 50,000 (or small business) had ADA responsibility for platforms in commuter rail service could not be determined within the scope of this anal ys is. Pursuant t o the requirements of Section 219 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) Amtrak performed an evaluation of the condition of its stations and its plan for making them fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (AD A). 15 Part of this study involved identifying ownership and ADA responsibility of the station building, platforms and parking for each station served. Cost estimates to make platforms ADA compliant were also developed. Amtrak identified 143 stations where ADA responsibility for platforms was shared by Amtrak and another entity or the sole responsibility of another entity

. Of these 17 were small governments and 3 were a small business. "Small governmental jurisdiction" means governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with a population of less than 50,000. These are listed in Table 1 . The statutory

small business definitions vary by 4

- digit SI C code and are found at 13 CFR Part 121. The small businesses included a short line railroad (NAICS code 48212), a museum (NAI CS code 712110) and a hotel (NAI CS code 722110). In order to be classified as a “small business" short line railroads must have <500 employees. Museum s and hotels must have annual revenues of <$7 million. These are listed in Table 2. Amtrak’s latest progress report 16 indicates that barrier free access has been provided at 8 of these stations (Winslow, AZ; Wasco, CA; Ashland, KY; St. Joseph, MI ; Durand, MI ; Ardmore, OK; Kingstree, SC; and Gainesville, TX) b y means of wheelchair lifts, pads and enclosures for the lift and other improvements to sidewalks and parking lots. An ADA

- compliant platform is under construction in Kingman, AZ, and an ADA

- compliant station and platform is under construction in New Buffalo, MI , where “ADA

- compliant” is in reference to the existing regulations. This reduces the number of small governmental jurisdictions impacted b y the proposed rule to 15.

15 Intercity Ra il Stations Served by Amtrak, A Report on Accessibility and Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, National Rail Passenger Corporation, February 1, 2009.
16 Intercity Rail Stations Served by Amtrak, An Update on Accessibility and Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, National Rail Passenger Corporation, October 27, 2010.63

There is currentl y no case law that identifies the "trigger" levels of "significant economic impact," or "substantial number of small entities." 17 However, Tables 1 and 2 provide information that may aid the decision maker in assessing the affect on small entities These show Amtrak’ s estimated platform costs relative to annual revenue of the small entities where such information was available. The impact on individual governments varies from 0.2% of revenues to almost 20%. For the one small business where revenue information was av ailable, platform costs would be 76% of annual revenues. However, when looked at from a national perspective it appears that the rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, these costs are estimated based on current regulations and would be incurred even in under the status quo, with no incremental impact due to the draft final rule.

**A description of the projected reporting, record keeping and other compliance requirements of a final rule including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necess**  **ary for preparation of the report or record**  This rule includes no new requirements for reporting, record keeping or other compliance requirements that are likel y to impact small entities.

. **An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with th e final**  **rule** The Department is proposing to amend its Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 regulations to update requirements concerning rail station platforms. The revised 37.41 would replace material presently found in 10.3.1(9) of Appendix A to Part 37. One of the purposes of this amendment is to maintain the status quo with respect to this requirement, given the adoption by DOT of the latest ADAAG standards, which do not include this language. The NPRM would also make conforming amendments to provisions in 49 CFR part 38 concerning commuter rail and intercity passenger cars.
17 A Guide to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, D.C., May 1996. **http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/rgSBAGuide.pdf**64

We know of no other Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
**A description of any significant alternatives to the final rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and**  **whi ch minimize any significant economic impact of the final rule on small entities**  There are no other alternatives that can achieve the stated objectives. The impacts cited above are the same for the proposed rule and the current regulations. The proposed rule would impose no additional burden on the small entities above and beyond that imposed by the current set of regulations and requirements.65

**Table 1 -**  **Small Governmental Jurisdictions with A DA**  **Platform Responsibility for Intercity** 

**Stat ions** 

**Station State**  **AD A**  **Responsibility Total** 

**Platform Cost Small** 

**Entity Platform**  **Share Small Entity** 

**Platform Cost Small Entity**  **An nual**  **Budget/Revenue Percent of** 

**Revenues** Kingman AZ Cit y of Kingman $825,000 100% $825,000 $231,316,219 0.36% Carpinteria CA Cit y of Carpinteria/Amtrak $223,000 50% $111,500 $12,970,958 0.86% Em ery ville CA Cit y of Em eryville $863,000 100% $863,000 $37,211,681 2.32% Wa sco CA Cit y of W asco $223,000 100% $223,000 $26,511,082 0.84% Wa llingford CT Town of Wa llingford/Amtrak $546,000 50% $273,000 $141,510,000 0.19% Palatka FL Cit y of Palatka $587,000 100% $587,000 $8,955,000 6.55% Princeton IL Cit y of Princeton/Amtrak $480,000 50% $240,000 $6,223,850 3.86% Ashland KY Cit y of Ashland/Amtrak $279,000 50% $139,500 $24,344,357 0.57% Durand MI Cit y of Durand $872,000 100% $872,000 NA NA New Buffalo MI Cit y of New Buffalo $322,000 100% $322,000 $2,132,900 15.10% St. Joseph MI Cit y of St. Joseph $475,000 100% $475,000 $15,688,403 3.03% Ardmore OK Cit y of Ardmore $484,000 100% $484,000 $45,634,217 1.06% Kingstree SC Town of Kingstree $964,000 100% $964,000 NA NA Gainesville TX Cit y of Gainesville $451,000 100% $451,000 $29,242,122 1.54% Rutland VT Cit y of Rutland $238,000 100% $238,000 $17,601,335 1.35% Danville VA Cit y of Danville $426,000 100% $426,000 $101,467,120 0.42% Sturtevant WI Village of Sturtevant $776,000 100% $776,000 $3,957,924 19.61%66

**Table 2 -**  **Small Businesses with A DA**  **Platform Responsibility for Intercity** 

**Stations**

Station State ADA Responsibility Total Platform Cost Sm all

Entity Platform Share Sm all

Entity Platfor m Cost Sm all Entit y

Annual Budget/ Revenue Percent of

Revenues Wi nslow AZ La Posada, LLC $573,000 100% $573,0 00 $750,000 76.40% Mendota IL Mendota Museum and

Historical Society $615,000 100% $615,0 00 NA NA Bellows Falls VT Am trak/Green Mountain

Railroad Corporation $477,000 50% $238,5 00 NA NA